


Notes on the system for classifying the animals presented in the "Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge"

by radondoran



Category: Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge (Book), The Book of Imaginary Beings - Jorge Luis Borges
Genre: Gen, all myths are true
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2014-03-16
Updated: 2014-03-16
Packaged: 2018-01-16 00:20:32
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 1,063
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/1324735
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/radondoran/pseuds/radondoran





	Notes on the system for classifying the animals presented in the "Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge"

**Author's Note:**

  * For [thinkatory](https://archiveofourown.org/users/thinkatory/gifts).



We humans are naturally drawn to classification. Only by sorting the infinite stimuli and ideas we encounter into classes are we able to create a perception of the universe that is comprehensible to ourselves. And yet as perpetual and automatic as the process is, it is governed by a thousand ineffable decisions.

A mother may flatter herself that she teaches her child something when she points at the family pet and says _Dog_. But where, and how, does the child learn that the word can be applied to more animals than her specific Fido? That there are entities of many sizes, colors, and shapes, from Pekinese to Great Pyrenees, which are called dog? That although she may have four legs, soft fur, a tail and largish mobile outer ears, and although she may resemble a terrier far more than does a Chihuahua, Mittens is _not_ a dog? Indeed, is it not terribly presumptuous to assume that something which is called dog today necessarily was a dog yesterday, and will be a dog tomorrow?

If the scope of a single common noun is subject to so many unperceived complexities, how much more difficult to create and apply classifications on a grand scale! There is no system of classification that is not, in some way, arbitrary; or that can be applied without finding some haziness in its dividing lines.

Melville's Ishmael maintained that the whale was a fish. Yet his description of the biology of the whale is accurate, or at least consistent with what an educated man of the time might have known. The only point on which he and Linnaeus (who has successfully swayed many present-day readers to his side) disagree, is the question of whether an animal of such a description falls into the category of _fish_. And I find myself not disinclined to agree with the point of view espoused by Messrs. Ishmael, Simeon Macey and Charley Coffin. The question of whether an animal spends its entire life in the water does seem a much more salient feature, and a more reasonable means for classification, than whether it nurses its young, or has warm blood, or breathes air, or any such insignificant details.

With all this in mind, let us take another look at the system for classing the animals put forward by the unknown author of that ancient Chinese encyclopedia whose title has been rendered as "the Celestial Emporium of benevolent Knowledge". I propose that though some scholars have pointed to it as an examplar of arcanity, it is merely subject to different ambiguities than modern Western systems.

Just as Ishmael found confusion in Linnaeus, we can find an appealing clarity in the flat structure and self-evident categories of the "Celestial Emporium". It is easy to see why the uroboros, which "begins at the end of its tail", and the phoenix, which has no heir nor legator but itself, appear under the heading of _Innumerable_. The calchona, and other animals that make aimless mischief, are _Stray dogs_. The Heavenly Cock, the Tigers of Annam, and other animals which bring order to time and space, are customarily regarded as _Belonging to the emperor_. And of course the Doppelgänger is classified as _Included in the present classification_.

But for all its clarity, this system, too, has its platypodes. For one thing, there is the question of animals which may seem to fall into more than one category. Such a one is the A Bao A Qu, which lies dormant at the bottom of the Tower of Victory in Chitor. It spends most of its life in this state of waiting, in which it bears a resemblance to animals classified as _Fabulous_ , and often remains so for scores of years on end. When a traveler ascends the steps of the tower, the A Bao A Qu follows him, growing brighter and more perfect with every step. If the visitor is a person who has achieved Nirvana, then the A Bao A Qu can follow him onto the terrace in its ultimate form, a delicate tentacled creature, full of a blue glow beautifully intense, achingly clear--in other words, an animal that is clearly _Drawn with a very fine camelhair brush_. The A Bao A Qu has reached the terrace only once. But the "Emporium" lists it in this latter category nonetheless.

A similar logic is seen in the case of the murex. As a living fish, this notorious pest to sailors is energetic enough. But it is most desirable in its preserved form, as a tool for finding gold, and is accordingly classified as _Embalmed_. There seems to be a pattern in the "Emporium" of classifying animals based on their consummate aspect, as it were, rather than the everyday.

Another interesting case is that of the ping-feng. The double-headed hog is classified under _Frenzied_ , although it is a shy creature and observed to be quite docile on those occasions when humans have gotten close to it in the wild. The deciding factor here seems to be that the ping-feng has a head at both ends. The amphisbaena (truly vicious with its double venom), and all other animals with heads at both ends, fall into the Frenzied category. Perhaps this is because perpetually seeming to come and go, or go and come, in contradictory directions, must result in a certain lack of harmony within the self.

Consider also the "Emporium"'s classification of the Eater of the Dead. With his fierce leonine claws and terrible crocodilian jaws, he might be thought _Frenzied_ , but is listed among the _Tame_. But indeed this makes sense; for although his _mode_ of eating the dead is swift and violent, he is compliant to the will of the forty-two judges, and only eats those who are ruled deserving of it. It is obvious that our forgotten encyclopedist was concerned with classifying the animals not according to superficial aspects, but with careful consideration of each animal's entire being. May we be as perceptive.

The "Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge" does not include _H. sapiens_ in its classification of the animals. But according to the Linnean taxonomy, our closest relatives to appear in its pages are the elves, followed closely by the satyrs, and both of these fall under the heading of _Having just broken the water pitcher_. Is that not more meaningful a category for ourselves than the banal "Mammalia"?


End file.
